| Cataloging Approach
The Task Force has been directed to build upon work conducted by TFER1, adopting the single record approach recommended by that group. The guidelines employ CONSER's "single" record concept delineating the digital counterpart of a print journal in cataloging records for the print. The guidelines adopt decision points that dictate cataloging of the digital version itself when the content of the digital differs substantively from the print. In this respect, the resulting product consists of records representing both single and separate record approaches. (For the minority view, see Separate Records: the Minority View The Task Force recognizes that any plan to create records for serial titles at a central site and distribute them for integration into local databases encounters the complexities inherent in attempting to merge serial records. Making use of centrally constructed single record cataloging necessitates great care to ensure that records to be overlaid be properly identified, matched and modified. Each library needs to consider records in the existing catalog reflecting former latest entry cataloging practices, brief records entered during retrospective conversion projects, incoming records for which there is not an exact one to one correspondence with existing records, and records to be overlaid that lack matching keys. Given these considerations, it is unlikely that a simple overlay process can be employed to load records in local catalogs and it is likely that some degree of local cataloging attention will be needed. For the most part, the Task Force thinks that work to integrate centrally-created records for CDL titles locally can be conducted by a paraprofessional working from records provided by the central cataloging agency. We also anticipate that the task of integrating these records locally will be greatest during the first year and will be substantially reduced in subsequent years. The present national cataloging guidelines that employ the single record approach to reflect both print and electronic versions of a resource also provide for the option of creating separate records describing the digital resource fully. The Task Force recognizes that campuses wishing or needing to have separate records for electronic resources in their databases as a complement to the single record approach can do so. In this instance, local catalogs can carry records for print versions on which comparable digital resources are also described, as well as separate records which describe the digital resources fully. In summary, the Task Force recommends adopting the single record approach for Tier 1 and Tier 2 titles with decision points employed to catalog digital versions directly in certain instances, either at the point of initial cataloging or in the course of catalog maintenance. Such an approach means catalog users will enjoy integrated access to like materials in the present MELVYL system requiring that holdings be linked to a single bibliographic record to present a merged display. Local loading of complementary cataloging for digital versions means campuses that wish to employ such records can do so. Campuses could elect to share such records. In determining decision points directing digital cataloging, the Task Force considered those defined and employed by other agencies, including the Library of Congress. Because the guidelines entail cataloging for digital resources under a variety of circumstances, the guidelines explicate practices for constructing both types of records, those cataloging digital versions directly and those delineating digital versions in cataloging records for print. These recommended guidelines focus most specifically on serials cataloging practices, conforming to those encompassed by CONSER guidelines. The preparation of separate records for serials is also provided for. For specific practices related to the preparation of separate records for monographs, catalogers are pointed to Cataloging Internet Resources : A Manual and Practical Guide, edited by Nancy Olson <http://www.purl.org/oclc/cataloging-internet>. Additional detail for specific CDL cataloging practices for other materials will need to be addressed in the future and added to the guidelines. Some specific types are: special collections related to Finding Aids of the Online Archive of California (OAC); government documents; and maps and imagery. This is not an exhaustive list. The Task Force recommends that standards for the MARC core collection level record established by the OAC Metadata Standards Working Group be enfolded in cataloging guidelines for CDL resources. Evolving standards for the cataloging of government documents and maps and images, developed by those with expertise in cataloging these materials, should be considered and added to the guidelines in the future. Aggregator databases are large databases that aggregate, or bring together, the full-text of journal articles. In most cases, the journals have print equivalents. The aggregators fall into two broad categories: those that aggregate publications of a single or small group of publishers and those that are subject-based and include articles from a vast array of publishers . Nearly all the CDL ejournals are publisher-based aggregators, such as Academic Press, American Mathematical Society, Wiley, etc. Most, but not all, retain the concept of "issues" so the user can locate a particular volume and date. Illustrations, tables and photographs are usually included. We believe this type of publication is well-suited to the single-record approach. Subject-based aggregators are usually presented as a searchable database, such as the ISI full-text databases (e.g., ABI/Inform) or Lexis-Nexis. The concept of "issues" no longer exists. Since there is no chief source for the component journals, a bibliographic description cannot be prepared according to the traditional library model. Usually these databases contain full-text or selected articles, with illustrations, brief articles, and other features omitted. The Program for Cooperative Cataloging has formed the Task Group on Journals in Aggregator Databases. Their charge is to conduct a demonstration project using vendor-supplied records for electronic journals embedded in an aggregation. The goal is to create record sets that libraries could buy, similar to the Major Microform Project. The current plan is for the vendor to supply brief in-analytic records for the titles. The project will evaluate content, creation, maintenance, and record distribution. Naturally these titles will be cataloged separately from the print but data elements may be included (e.g., OCLC numbers of the print) so that individual libraries may merge them with their print records should they choose to do so. (For more information, see the task group’s web site: http://lcweb.loc.gov/catdir/pcc/aggregatortg.html. The Task Force recognizes that importance of this national effort and will continue to monitor its activities. Nonetheless we found that the group is not far enough along to help us meet our needs at this time. Centralized Cataloging of CDL titles The Task Force recommends that a single site serve as the Centralized Cataloging Agency (CCA). This agency could assume responsibility for cataloging the major types of CDL materials. Specialized types of materials could be cataloged either by the CCA, or by another campus with particular focused expertise, as determined in the future. A number of advantages attend to centralized cataloging:
Relationship of the Bibliographic File to the CDL Directory The Task Force has been asked to address the "inclusion of data in the bibliographic record that will aid in identifying and retrieving electronic resources available within a particular discipline outside of the catalog and periodicals database, e.g., the CDL Directory". This component of the charge engendered the Task Force’s study of the relationship of descriptive data elements and controlled access points carried in MARC records, which are the foundation of library catalogs, with those data elements utilized by the CDL Directory. MARC records are a rich source of data about all types of library resources including detailed descriptive information about the origin, nature and extent of a given resource, its relationship to other resources, classification and subject terms and consistent access points for responsible agencies and individuals. Traditional library catalogs and Web lists or directories, such as the CDL Directory or local campus Web lists of resources, can and should be complementary. The idea, already routinely applied at the University of California, San Diego, and at other institutions around the country, is to extend the functionality of the online catalog and derive other types of access from the data-rich MARC records. Since the data elements included in MARC-based online catalogs and Web-based directories have a high degree of overlap, the Task Force recommends that the MARC records created for electronic resources be mined via an automated process to derive the data elements required for the CDL Directory. The Task Force has discussed the data needs of the CDL Directory with its Web Design Coordinator and has studied the documentation provided for those wishing to contribute records to the CDL Directory (available at http://www.cdlib.org/libstaff/system_services/projects/cdl_directory/). The Task Force and the CDL Web Design Coordinator believe there is significant value in developing mechanisms for deriving multiple products from the same set of data elements. All of the data elements currently included in the CDL Directory can be carried in the MARC record, in addition to the data elements required for the Melvyl Catalog. The Task Force has developed a preliminary data map between MARC fields and CDL Directory database fields which can be the foundation of an automated data exchange and extraction process see Metadata Map Between the CDL Directory and MARC Records, Currently, many CDL Directory records are created by copying data elements from records in the Melvyl Catalog or other campus OPAC and rekeying them into the records format (metadata scheme) devised for the Directory and by adding in some data elements that are unique to the Directory. If the records in the MARC-based online catalog are kept up to date, products derived from the catalog would also be up to date. Data would only need to be entered once and could be manipulated to produce a variety of products, whether an online catalog or a Web-based directory. Ideally, the Web-based products would then become as dynamic as the online catalog and would not require time-consuming rekeying and reloading of data to generate Web displays. Such a procedure could also be employed effectively as other projects, such as the Online Archive of California (OAC). An automated data-exchange mechanism would not preclude the continued creation of records for either the Melvyl Catalog or the CDL Directory using only the data elements required for the specific type of access needed in those cases where only one type of access might be desired. However, the Task Force recommends using the MARC record as the foundation when multiple types of access are desired because it is an international standard for communicating bibliographic data , provides for consistent forms of access for the same person or body (controlled headings) and it can accommodate the descriptive data needs of the CDL Directory. There is work underway at the Library of Congress and other institutions to develop reliable data exchange software between different metadata schemes. Since August 1998 the Network Development and MARC Standards Office has made freeware and beta versions of conversion utilities available for testing (see http://lcweb.loc.gov/marc/marcdtd/marcdtdbeta.html). They have provided a detailed manual for the utilities that was most recently updated in February 1999. The Task Force believes that this and other utilities can and should be investigated by the CDL so that the MARC records created for CDL resources can be utilized effectively in multiple end products, specifically the Melvyl Catalog and the CDL Directory. The Task Force’s specific recommendations are: 1) MARC records created for electronic resources licensed by the
CDL and
2) The MARC record be the primary metadata scheme employed when
multiple
3) Future development efforts regarding the structure of the CDL
Directory
4) The CDL assign staff to investigate the employment of available
utilities for
The Task Force recommends that a centralized PURL (Persistent Uniform Resource Locator) server or another means of URL resolution be established in association with the centralized cataloging service for digital resources. A centralized server will permit all campuses to carry a single URL in cataloging records, the same address referenced by the CDL Directory. The address can be assigned one time by the CCA and distributed to the campuses in 856 fields of the MARC records. It can also serve the CDL Directory. A single address will preclude duplicative effort otherwise required by the campuses. It will result in a single intelligible display in the MELVYL catalog. The Task Force recommends that the PURL server be hosted by the CDL as the agency with appropriate technical capability. Use of the centrally located server for assignment and maintenance of CDL resource addresses would represent an expanded application of that envisioned for the Online Archive of California (OAC), for which CDL Technologies is presently investigating its establishment. As a component of cataloging guidelines, the Task Force recommends initial assignment of PURLs in MARC records by the CCA to be conveyed by means of distributed MARC records, carried in OCLC records, and in each campus's local catalog and directory. The CCA would assume overall responsibility for assigning PURLs and maintaining currency. In addition, each campus would be authorized for upkeep of PURLs so that corrections can be made as broken or inappropriate links are encountered. The Task Force understands from the Director of CDL Technologies that there are no technical constraints that should prevent distributed maintenance. The Task Force believes a centralized service could present a model enabling measurement of the resources required for ongoing resolution of corrupted URLs, so that the CDL could gauge the impact of expanding that service in future to more fully serve the campuses. Record Production and Distribution In the course of its work, the Task Force considered several different methods of producing and distributing cataloging records. The following process, reflecting input by CDL-T and information gathered by the Task Force’s Survey on Record Distribution sent to the UC Heads of Cataloging is recommended as the most direct, efficient and cost effective method. The Task Force recommends file distribution by means of FTP file transfer as the most straightforward and efficient means of transferring records to the CDL and the campuses. Processing and distribution steps would include:
The Task Force recognizes that the CDL and the campuses will continue to adhere to contractual obligations regarding OCLC participation and has forwarded related questions to UC Heads of Technical Services (HOTS) for consideration. The CCA would maintain regular communication with the CDL Acquisitions Unit to obtain and update information about licensed resources. The CCA would reflect in MARC records the updated information about resources supplied by the CDL and would convey that information to the campuses by means of revised records and a defined notification process. The Task Force also recommends that a two-way communication mechanism be established between the CCA and campus cataloging units to enable timely sharing of information on CDL cataloging details. The CCA could use this means to announce progress on major packages, request feedback on cataloging questions and report on other operational issues that might arise. Campuses will have the same need to query and communicate with the CCA. We recommend that the communication mechanism be formalized and that campus cataloging contacts be designated. Communications could be via a CDL cataloging listserv, web site, or some other means. A principle responsibility of the CCA will be the maintenance of records
for Internet resources. The types of updates the CCA will make include,
but are not limited to:
The methodology for keeping information current will include:
The Task Force recommends that CDL process records received from the CCA using standard Melvyl system normalization, indexing and loading programs. CCA records for monographic databases and web sites would be loaded into the Melvyl Catalog and those for serials into the California Periodicals Database. In working with our CDL-T liaison, we strove to identify a record loading process which minimizes the need for special processing and programming with the recognition that a major development investment in the current Melvyl system technology is not desirable at this time. Some programming will be needed, however, to establish a new CDL input stream, associated CDL location code and holdings segment, and to output FTP files to local campuses. The Task Force also identified four modest Melvyl system enhancements
which we feel are important to create a clearer presentation of CDL resources
and provide search capabilities equal to other materials in the union catalog.
These enhancements are described below.
Cost Models The Task Force has identified cost factors associated with centralized cataloging and record distribution. Cost estimates are currently being assigned to the cost factors and compensation models developed. The cost factors and cost estimates (work in progress) are presented in spreadsheet form under Cost Factors and Estimates The Task Force recommends adoption of the centralized cataloging agency model (CCA) as a cost-effective method of providing high quality cataloging that supports the timely access to CDL Tier 1 and Tier 2 titles. Adoption of the CCA model would in large part eliminate the redundancy of having each campus separately catalog CDL resources for inclusion in campus online catalogs and the Melvyl Catalog. The ongoing costs associated with the higher level intellectual activity needed to catalog CDL resources and maintain active links to those resources (primarily library assistant III to librarian) would be a shared cost rather than separately absorbed by each campus. Ongoing costs at the campus level would primarily be assigned to record receipt and processing at a lower cost. The start-up costs and processing costs will vary from campus to campus depending on local systems requirements. The CCA would relieve campuses of the need to commit significant levels of higher level cataloging staff to process and maintain CDL Tier 1 and Tier 2 titles. Centralized cataloging of CDL resources would provide campuses with much needed flexibility in allocating limited staff resources to other technical processing priorities. |